mjr wrote:Bicycler wrote:I often wonder why many object to allowing cyclists to use sections of pavements, paths through parks, public footpaths etc. Then I hear cyclists say that people ought to walk in die straight lines or single file, shouldn't wear headphones, or walk dogs etc. etc.I think that's exaggerating. I think if a path is mixed-use, then everyone should share. For people walking, that basically amounts to looking up occasionally and not walking 10m abreast. For people cycling, it means giving others at least 1.5m of space if you can, else ringing your bell well ahead and slowing to a speed that you could stop safely from, passing behind people as much as possible and basically not treating others how bad motorists treat us on the carriageway.Yes there's some exaggeration. As we all know cyclists are not all the same and neither are their attitudes. FWIW I agree with your summary of the roles of different groups. Whilst 10m abreast walking is obviously inappropriate, we can't say to two people walking side by side on typical UK 2-3m wide shared use paths.

mjr wrote:Shared use of existing pedestrian paths is...

Ah, now, that's a key word: "existing". That's rarely a good option. However, where a path is built or rebuilt as mixed-use, especially if it's funded by cycling budgets, then I think it can be OKIt is a key word and I used it deliberately. Unfortunately former pedestrian paths seem to make up the majority of routes open to cyclists at the present time. We sometimes talk about mixed use paths as if they were ever thus. Often it's just that a few signs have been placed and now pedestrians are expected to behave differently. I keep harking back to it but the problem is often inadequate width for the level of pedestrian and/or cycle use which creates conflict. If the path is wide enough and flows not too high it becomes a non-issue. But I do think that when using such inadequate shared formerly pedestrian-only paths that we need to be accepting of ordinary pedestrian behaviour such as dog walking and headphone wearing. It would be damaging to the prospect of opening more such paths to cyclists (and I'd rather they were open than not) if permitting cycles becomes associated with greater inconvenience to pedestrians. The situation is obviously different where a new multi-use route is opened, there is no existing group to be inconvenienced. Upgraded paths can probably fall into either category. A re-laying of tarmac for the accommodation of cycles does little to change the status quo. A widened good quality path might facilitate convenient use by both groups. Ideally I'd want paths with high numbers of cyclists, for example advertised cycle routes, to be segregated rather than shared use.

thirdcrank wrote:bovlomov wrote: ... A beatific smile (like a member of a religious cult) works best for me - they can interpret it how they like.

Just watch out! The aggro might be a diversion by some cunning spook to get a look at your face. Probably best to remain totally inscrutable.

Now I think about it, the beatific smile might not show beneath the false beard. They'll just see the mad eyes.

It's only right that bicycling should be considered an indicator of domestic extremism. Why do you think the cyclist didn't take the video to the police? He feared they might see it - as all right thinking folk would - as a salt-of-the-earth motorist being set upon by an anarcho-cyclist.

flat tyre wrote:Looks to me as if the whole confrontation could have been avoided by the cyclist moving into the gap between the parked cars to let the car overtake safely, rather then blocking him off for the rest of the street.

Specifically recommended against doing this in the various cycling training manuals isn't it? I know in cars they say not to hop between parked cars, but take the lane and stay there as its less dangerous.

Either way this could have been completely avoided if the driver hadn't driven like a prat. The victim was a bit silly chasing him down, but having done the same myself in the heat of the moment it's understandable. Also remember that the camera will make this look further away than it was as the lens angle will distort the image.

I loved his article in Cycle magazine but wondered how he could be sure there were no hungry lions among the elephants and giraffes on his route. I don't like being chased by dogs. Lions would put me right off.

Tacascarow wrote:MartinC wrote:Tacascarow wrote:That has little to do with consideration & nearly everything to do with lack of experience.I've nearly been taken out by caravans, boat trailers, general car trailers, car transporters & horse boxes.A separate test to tow a trailer over a certain size & weight should be mandatory IMHO.

Yebbut, not bothering to learn how to do it safely is a lack of consideration in itself. Besides some of the conversations I've had indicate that some of them at least don't consider a too close pass as anything that they need to bother about.I was merely pointing out that horse boxes aren't unique. But you are right not learning how a trailer of any sort behaves is inconsiderate. In my part of the world caravans & boat trailers are more common than horse boxes & their owners probably don't take them on the road as often as many horse riders.

One advantage horse riders have over cyclists is their sheer presence & the fact many drivers are justly scared to go to close or fast.More than one driver has been killed because a horse has reared & come down through the windscreen.I can't remember any incident where a driver has been killed when involved with a cyclist.Few drivers are actually as scared as they should be when it comes to going too close. They tend to estimate a horse's width as far less than it is, rather as they sometimes do with bikes.

The usual scenario in a horse/vehicle impact is a dead or injured horse and a damaged vehicle. Riders are usually the next in line, with drivers and passengers only rarely getting injured. Like a cyclist, a horse is actually pretty vulnerable, as although it is big, something like a broken shoulder which wouldn't be fatal to a human is 100% fatal for horses, unfortunately, and despite incredible modern medical advances, even a broken leg can't always be fixed for a horse, and if not, that's a 'fatal' too.

Bicycler wrote:I often wonder why many object to allowing cyclists to use sections of pavements, paths through parks, public footpaths etc. Then I hear cyclists say that people ought to walk in die straight lines or single file, shouldn't wear headphones, or walk dogs etc. etc.I think that's exaggerating. I think if a path is mixed-use, then everyone should share. For people walking, that basically amounts to looking up occasionally and not walking 10m abreast. For people cycling, it means giving others at least 1.5m of space if you can, else ringing your bell well ahead and slowing to a speed that you could stop safely from, passing behind people as much as possible and basically not treating others how bad motorists treat us on the carriageway.

Shared use of existing pedestrian paths is...

Ah, now, that's a key word: "existing". That's rarely a good option. However, where a path is built or rebuilt as mixed-use, especially if it's funded by cycling budgets, then I think it can be OK, but:

The key to creating space for cycling is not the regimentation of pedestrians but the reallocation of space

The two time previous winner (Kristof Allegaert) is not riding the Transcontinental this year because he's riding the Moscow-Vladivostok stage race, following the route of the Trans-Siberian Railway. Total length 9195 km with 15 stages of up to 1382 km. Supported, with following cars. Web page here with live tracker, pictures, latest news etc.They are currently about 40% of the way through the 1380 km stage 12. Stage 4 (945km) 28 kph / 33 hours 45 minutes time limit on it. It's not clear whether this applies to all stages.

It's been suggested that this is caused, to some extent, by €U safety regs., and I can believe this to be the case.

We seem to have standardisation across Europe of vehicles but no standardisation of road conditions. Trucks which are OK in countries where they are not allowed anywhere near people are often not OK playing dodgems, or rather bumper cars, in the narrow urban streets of the UK

John Holiday wrote:Have Dutch type 'ding/dong' bells on most of my cycles , & almost always get a positive reaction from people that I pass.They seem to be effective at up to 50 m.range, but obviously fail to penetrate to walkers using headphones!The Sustrans mantra of 'Share with Care' comes to mind!I often wonder why many object to allowing cyclists to use sections of pavements, paths through parks, public footpaths etc. Then I hear cyclists say that people ought to walk in die straight lines or single file, shouldn't wear headphones, or walk dogs etc. etc.

Shared use of existing pedestrian paths is at best a stop gap or a partial solution appropriate in limited circumstances. As a main focus of cycle policy - as it effectively seems to be in the UK - it takes us down a path of confrontation and mutual inconvenience. The key to creating space for cycling is not the regimentation of pedestrians but the reallocation of space

Anyone else had this...happened to me a couple of times recently (different vans/drivers)....

riding along a major road, wanting to turn right into a minor road, signal right and move to right side of my lane. Van driver coming towards me sees this, sticks his hand out the window and tries to high five me.

Made me chuckle but I'm thinking if I'd been a novice cyclist or kid who wasn't confident in taking avoiding action, in a 30 zone and the van driver had made contact then hands may have met at over 40mph....which could be quite painful, not to mention ending up with one on the floor and the other having his arm bent back in a way that it wasn't designed to do!

TonyR wrote:The fat commuter wrote:..... but in my opinion he was looking for trouble by pursuing the motorist and the police may see it that way too.

Sorry but there is no excuse for physical assault and there should be no place here for victim blaming either.

There is no excuse for assault - that's why I said that he should show the footage to the police. But, at what point should one realise that continuing with an argument is not a good idea? The cyclist caught up with the car (as others have mentioned, he put other road users at risk by doing this - but that could look worse due to the editing). He said what he had to say - fair enough, many of us may have done the same. The driver gives a load of abuse and then drives off - only for the cyclist to have another go. Any sensible person would have let the driver drive off and call it a day. The driver therefore stops and gives more verbal abuse - then drives off, parks up, returns and tries to grab the camera. He then walks off back to his car. The cyclist then has another go at the motorist - the motorist is actually driving off when the cyclist laughs at him. That is when the driver goes after the cyclist proper - and comes a cropper.

What started off as a tiny fracas could have ended up with many lives being ruined there. We have seen recently that some car drivers do arm themselves with knives. I'm not saying that the driver in this instance had one but had he actually caught up with the cyclist, who do we think would have come worst off? There is a time when you say that enough is enough. For me, I may have chased after the driver but, after receiving a load of abuse I'd leave it there - it's simply not worth it.

The above doesn't excuse the assault, btw. (Is grabbing a camera an assault)?

Looks to me as if the whole confrontation could have been avoided by the cyclist moving into the gap between the parked cars to let the car overtake safely, rather then blocking him off for the rest of the street.

Heltor Chasca wrote:The motorist's wrongdoings are a given but the cyclist doesn't even really suffer a close pass. If he was having a bad day and that pass caused him to loose the plot and give chase, maybe he should have stayed in bed. What's he doing cycling? Certainly not enjoying himself. In the process of the chase it looks like he nearly has a couple of collisions with pedestrians.

It's only a video. No-one was really hurt. And it makes us chuckle because it's the big guy that's gets it and little guy escapes.

On the whole, I agree with you - the cyclist should have let it go. But we've all been there - the endless close passes, the aggression, the occasional low level assault. And always from people who believe in their right to intimidate. It might not be the right person who finally gets your reaction but it certainly isn't without foundation.

If the driver wasn't badly hurt (or at all) then it ended well - for the small guy in all of us that sometimes needs to let his feelings out.

Regarding the close pass which sparked all this off - debatable I think, but the motorist certainly seemed to be driving aggressively (as so many do). My close pass from my Dutch motorist a few weeks ago, which I posted up on here, seemed a bit closer in actual inches. Judge for yourself.close pass by NL driver.jpgBut I didn't do anything about it. I wouldn't have been able to catch the car anyway.

I've never had a confrontation since I took to carrying a camera - and I think one lesson learned is, I wouldn't draw attention to my camera if such a situation arose with me. As pointed out already, just let the camera keep rolling, hope the offender is too full of his own venom to notice, and then if it merits a Police report, hand the camera (or at any rate the SD card) over to the police intact. Let them draw their own conclusions. But I hope it never happens...

I've never had a driver get out of their car in anger. The closest I got was a stream of F-words from a driver waiting at a level crossing - but he stayed in his seat. I cleared off. No sense in escalating it. This was before I got my camera.

I would also say that the driver showed pretty poor judgement in trying to reverse off the bike before he even bothered to find out what he had hit - if there had been someone there that wouldn't have helped. So as to not being 'to hard on the driver' - he should definitely think hard about his actions.